Organized Crime and the Assassination of JFK

[Tim Gratz]

This thread shows that some researchers develop a theory and then start to believe it so much, that it becomes the irrefutable truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That may be the case but I am trying to answer the questions by examing the evidence. If you are not satisfied with my answers, ask follow-up questions. I will then try to deal with them. Note the way that Tim and I debate the issue.

John, respectfully, I do not think your post answers Mr. Ecker's "short-and-to-the-point" question:  who, but organized crime, had the "clout" to "order" Ruby to kill Oswald? 

(I don't think you even attempted to answer his question re the Ruby phone calls.)

Jack Ruby certainly would not have agreed, for financial remuneration only, to kill Oswald at short range, risking being killed himself in the process, and if not facing capital punishment in Texas. Moreover, as a member of organized crime, presumably Ruby would not have agreed to commit a "for-hire" murder without the prior approval of his Mafia bosses.

The "Mob", however, had the authority over Ruby to order him to silence Oswald.  Indications are that he was promised "the best lawyer" and that it was a Mafia associate in Vegas who first contacted the Belli firm to obtain Belli's representation of Ruby.

The participation of Ruby in the conspiracy virtually compels a conclusion that, at least in some way, organized crime was involved in the JFK assassination.

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am sorry my earlier reply has not satisfied you. Of course I accept that figures associated with organized crime were recruited to become part of the conspiracy. John Martino and Johnny Roselli fall into that category. This was done in case they had to resort to Plan B. No doubt non-Mafia figures who were recruited into the conspiracy were told that the assassination was being paid for my organized crime bosses (they would hardly be told the truth).

Nor did I dispute that Ruby was connected to organized crime. In fact, I have argued the opposite. The evidence clearly suggests that Ruby was in trouble in the days leading up to the assassination and that he was in contact with leading crime bosses. I have no doubt that Ruby was recruited from within the underground crime network. That person would have been involved in some sort of deal with the conspirators. However, this person was unlikely to be aware of who was pulling the strings.

Your quote from "What Interests You the Most" thread:  "At the beginning is the political viewpoint of the researcher.  From this ideology emerges a theory.   The theory is tested by looking at the evidence."   There is no doubt in my mind that many assassination researchers employ just the methodology you suggest: fashion a theory consistent with their ideology and then look for evidence to support the theory.  This turns the search for truth on its head.  One must START with the evidence and follow it wherever it leads.  One's political ideology is irrelevant to the investigation of even a political murder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I said is true of all researchers (including yourself). The problem is that most researchers are unaware of it. Here are two quotations from historians (both conservatives) that make this point very well:

“There will always be a connection between the way in which men contemplate the past and the way in which they contemplate the present.” (Thomas Buckle).

“History free of all values cannot be written. Indeed, it is a concept almost impossible to understand, for men will scarcely take the trouble to inquire

laboriously into something which they set no value upon." (W. H. B. Court)

However, this view of “ideology directed” research does not mean that the theory cannot be changed. As I have already pointed out, I originally believed that organized crime was involved in the planning of the assassination. However, by carefully looking at the evidence, I have discovered that I was wrong about this. I will explain this in later postings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John, taking your last comment first, I certainly look forward to your new postings. I may not agree with all of your conclusions but your postings are always well-written and thought-provoking.

Your quotations from Buckle and Court I would also accept. They relate to one's perspective on history. While the Kennedy assassination was certainly an important historical event, it was, first and foremost, a crime. I do not believe you can find a quotation from a criminology book that political ideology should guide the resolution of a crime.

Perhaps Al Carrier can provide us with his perspective from a law enforcement background. It strikes me that the first thing a detective would do in trying to resolve the crime (from a November 25th perspective) would be to determine how clearly it was that LHO committed the crime. Presumably, an objective answer would be that there was room for at least some doubt. Then, a detective might want to examine LHO's background and associates to determine who may have helped him plan the assassination. Obviously, LHO's background included connections to the Soviet Union and familial connections to the Marcello crime family. Given LHO's background, however, an intelligent detective would have wanted to at least investigate whether LHO had any connections to U.S. intelligence.

Since Ruby's murder of LHO raised the obvious possibility that it was done to silence Ruby, the detective would have wanted to examine Ruby's background. An honest examination would have revealed, of course, his long-time involvement with organized crime. Organized crime would then show a possible connection between Ruby and Oswald.

Which raises another point. An honest investigation would have searched very carefully for possible links between LHO and Ruby, since any pre-assassination association would be highly suggestive of a conspiracy.

An investigation of Ruby's background would have (because of the Wilson disclosure in London) revealed Ruby's association with Santo Trafficante, Jr. Then we have a connection between Ruby, Trafficante, Oswald and Cuba.

The investigator would have presumably wanted to carefully quiz Trafficante re his possible involvement.

Query whether the investigator would have been able to discover the CIA/Mafia plots against Castro?

I don't want to belabor the point but I think a contemporaneous investigation of the assassination would have proceeded along these lines. It would not have been guided by a political ideology.

I do agree that you are open-minded and open to change of viewpoint as the evidence develops. Hopefully, you agree that I am as well. At this point, as I am sure you know, I think the evidence points to Cuban involvement, with the assistance of Trafficante. One reason to suspect Cuban involvement, of course, is the ongoing CIA efforts to kill Castro, giving Castro the strongest possible motive to kill Kennedy (self-defense). Plus, of course, we have Castro's September 7th warning to American political leaders, coincidentally co-inciding with Cubela recontacting the CIA and offering to kill Castro for the U.S. Plus we have Cubela's insistence on obtaining assurance that Robert Kennedy supported his plan. Then we have Trafficante's association with Cubela. And we have the strange movement of Gilberto Lopez from Key West to Tampa (Trafficante's home town) plus his flight to Cuba within five days after the assassination. All this is certainl;y suggestive of Cuban involvement, and it is not the only evidence pointing in that direction.

So far I have seen little actual evidence from you suggesting involvement from any members of the MICC. I also do not believe there is good reason to believe that a wealthy American industrialist would risk capital punishment merely to enrich his estate.

The strongest evidence that I see of possible anti-Castro Cuban involvement is Martino's "confessions". The only real evidence I see so far of possible rogue CIA involvement is Morales' "confession" although from one of your earlier posts I gather you agree that his "confession" was quite limited and made while he was drunk so it could be nothing but intoxicated braggadocia. The possibility that Hunt was in Dallas on November 22nd does, however, raise interesting questions, to say the least.

There are reasons to suspect KGB involvement, including the Nosenko matter (including his known lies about his background and his "flunking" the 1966 polygraph examination (a fact, curiously, omitted from the HSCA's treatment of the Nosenko matter) and the assumption that Joseph Trento had some basis for making the statements he did in his book. Plus, the fact that Castro and his entourage spent five weeks in Moscow in the spring of 1963. And, of course, the fact that the KGB had a known history of assassinations, continuing (most people think) to the attempt on the Pope's life. And we have the fact that, shortly before the assassination Cubela was in contact with Kostikov.

Let us hope that there is still an opportunity to solve the assassination in our lifetime. That can best be done, I suggest, by not looking for evidence to support our ideology but rather through an objective examination of the evidence.

Edited December 23, 2004 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

This thread shows that some researchers develop a theory and then start to believe it so much, that it becomes the irrefutable truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That may be the case but I am trying to answer the questions by examing the evidence. If you are not satisfied with my answers, ask follow-up questions. I will then try to deal with them. Note the way that Tim and I debate the issue.

John, respectfully, I do not think your post answers Mr. Ecker's "short-and-to-the-point" question:  who, but organized crime, had the "clout" to "order" Ruby to kill Oswald? 

(I don't think you even attempted to answer his question re the Ruby phone calls.)

Jack Ruby certainly would not have agreed, for financial remuneration only, to kill Oswald at short range, risking being killed himself in the process, and if not facing capital punishment in Texas. Moreover, as a member of organized crime, presumably Ruby would not have agreed to commit a "for-hire" murder without the prior approval of his Mafia bosses.

The "Mob", however, had the authority over Ruby to order him to silence Oswald.  Indications are that he was promised "the best lawyer" and that it was a Mafia associate in Vegas who first contacted the Belli firm to obtain Belli's representation of Ruby.

The participation of Ruby in the conspiracy virtually compels a conclusion that, at least in some way, organized crime was involved in the JFK assassination.

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am sorry my earlier reply has not satisfied you. Of course I accept that figures associated with organized crime were recruited to become part of the conspiracy. John Martino and Johnny Roselli fall into that category. This was done in case they had to resort to Plan B. No doubt non-Mafia figures who were recruited into the conspiracy were told that the assassination was being paid for my organized crime bosses (they would hardly be told the truth).

Nor did I dispute that Ruby was connected to organized crime. In fact, I have argued the opposite. The evidence clearly suggests that Ruby was in trouble in the days leading up to the assassination and that he was in contact with leading crime bosses. I have no doubt that Ruby was recruited from within the underground crime network. That person would have been involved in some sort of deal with the conspirators. However, this person was unlikely to be aware of who was pulling the strings.

Your quote from "What Interests You the Most" thread:  "At the beginning is the political viewpoint of the researcher.  From this ideology emerges a theory.   The theory is tested by looking at the evidence."   There is no doubt in my mind that many assassination researchers employ just the methodology you suggest: fashion a theory consistent with their ideology and then look for evidence to support the theory.  This turns the search for truth on its head.  One must START with the evidence and follow it wherever it leads.  One's political ideology is irrelevant to the investigation of even a political murder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I said is true of all researchers (including yourself). The problem is that most researchers are unaware of it. Here are two quotations from historians (both conservatives) that make this point very well:

“There will always be a connection between the way in which men contemplate the past and the way in which they contemplate the present.” (Thomas Buckle).

“History free of all values cannot be written. Indeed, it is a concept almost impossible to understand, for men will scarcely take the trouble to inquire

laboriously into something which they set no value upon." (W. H. B. Court)

However, this view of “ideology directed” research does not mean that the theory cannot be changed. As I have already pointed out, I originally believed that organized crime was involved in the planning of the assassination. However, by carefully looking at the evidence, I have discovered that I was wrong about this. I will explain this in later postings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John, taking your last comment first, I certainly look forward to your new postings. I may not agree with all of your conclusions but your postings are always well-written and thought-provoking.

Your quotations from Buckle and Court I would also accept. They relate to one's perspective on history. While the Kennedy assassination was certainly an important historical event, it was, first and foremost, a crime. I do not believe you can find a quotation from a criminology book that political ideology should guide the resolution of a crime.

Perhaps Al Carrier can provide us with his perspective from a law enforcement background. It strikes me that the first thing a detective would do in trying to resolve the crime (from a November 25th perspective) would be to determine how clearly it was that LHO committed the crime. Presumably, an objective answer would be that there was room for at least some doubt. Then, a detective might want to examine LHO's background and associates to determine who may have helped him plan the assassination. Obviously, LHO's background included connections to the Soviet Union and familial connections to the Marcello crime family. Given LHO's background, however, an intelligent detective would have wanted to at least investigate whether LHO had any connections to U.S. intelligence.

Since Ruby's murder of LHO raised the obvious possibility that it was done to silence Ruby, the detective would have wanted to examine Ruby's background. An honest examination would have revealed, of course, his long-time involvement with organized crime. Organized crime would then show a possible connection between Ruby and Oswald.

Which raises another point. An honest investigation would have searched very carefully for possible links between LHO and Ruby, since any pre-assassination association would be highly suggestive of a conspiracy.

An investigation of Ruby's background would have (because of the Wilson disclosure in London) revealed Ruby's association with Santo Trafficante, Jr. Then we have a connection between Ruby, Trafficante, Oswald and Cuba.

The investigator would have presumably wanted to carefully quiz Trafficante re his possible involvement.

Query whether the investigator would have been able to discover the CIA/Mafia plots against Castro?

I don't want to belabor the point but I think a contemporaneous investigation of the assassination would have proceeded along these lines. It would not have been guided by a political ideology.

I do agree that you are open-minded and open to change of viewpoint as the evidence develops. Hopefully, you agree that I am as well. At this point, as I am sure you know, I think the evidence points to Cuban involvement, with the assistance of Trafficante. One reason to suspect Cuban involvement, of course, is the ongoing CIA efforts to kill Castro, giving Castro the strongest possible motive to kill Kennedy (self-defense). Plus, of course, we have Castro's September 7th warning to American political leaders, coincidentally co-inciding with Cubela recontacting the CIA and offering to kill Castro for the U.S. Plus we have Cubela's insistence on obtaining assurance that Robert Kennedy supported his plan. Then we have Trafficante's association with Cubela. And we have the strange movement of Gilberto Lopez from Key West to Tampa (Trafficante's home town) plus his flight to Cuba within five days after the assassination. All this is certainl;y suggestive of Cuban involvement, and it is not the only evidence pointing in that direction.

So far I have seen little actual evidence from you suggesting involvement from any members of the MICC. I also do not believe there is good reason to believe that a wealthy American industrialist would risk capital punishment merely to enrich his estate.

The strongest evidence that I see of possible anti-Castro Cuban involvement is Martino's "confessions". The only real evidence I see so far of possible rogue CIA involvement is Morales' "confession" although from one of your earlier posts I gather you agree that his "confession" was quite limited and made while he was drunk so it could be nothing but intoxicated braggadocia. The possibility that Hunt was in Dallas on November 22nd does, however, raise interesting questions, to say the least.

There are reasons to suspect KGB involvement, including the Nosenko matter and the assumption that Joseph Trento had some basis for making the statements he did in his book. Plus, the fact that Castro and his entourage spent five weeks in Moscow in the spring of 1963. And, of course, the fact that the KGB had a known history of assassinations, continuing (most people think) to the attempt on the Pope's life. And we have the fact that, shortly before the assassination Cubela was in contact with Kostikov.

Let us hope that there is still an opportunity to solve the assassination in our lifetime.

[Wim Dankbaar]

fter the failure to kill Oswald after the assassination, it was necessary for him to be eliminated. As I explained earlier, the original plan was to blame pro-Castro communists for the assassination. However, Johnson vetoed this idea and insisted on the lone gunman theory. The conspirators now decided to go with Plan B: “JFK had been assassinated by organized crime”. Oswald clearly could not be allowed to live. Even if he had not been involved in the assassination he knew far too much about the conspiracy. To save his life he would have revealed the work he had been doing with the FBI and the CIA.

Oswald was in police custody and his killer would obviously be apprehended. Therefore it was necessary to select someone for the task who could be linked with organized crime. The person also needed to be linked with the crime bosses who were going to be set up as the organizers of the assassination. The conspirators obviously had good contacts within the FBI and the Dallas Police Department. It would not be too difficult to identify Jack Ruby as the ideal man to do the job.

I am just a little itched that this seems to be presented as fact, while it is in fact theorizing. It read almost reads like you were a close personal confidant of LBJ and he told you this himself. I do not think LBJ was the mastermind of the conspiracy. Nor do I think he would have had the time to do all this reflection and convince his co-conspirators to find an organized crime guy that had nothing to with the conspiracy yet convince him to kill Oswald. Besides, who had to do the convincing other than Ruby's crime bosses? And if those bosses were unrelated to the conspiracy, why would they go along with LBJ and his co-conspirators? All this persuasion had to be done within two days, while LBJ was in Washington? Remember that Ruby was stalking Oswald from the day of the assassination !

My theory is much more simple. The conspirators planned indeed to get rid of Oswald right after the fact. Either by killing him or by transporting him out of the country and get rid of him there. When that plan failed., they had to hastily find a man to finish the job and silence Oswald forever. This had to be man who was in on the conspiracy, could be relied on to keep his mouth shut, and with access to the Dallas Police Office. Virtually the only choice was Jack Ruby. If you read this:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm

It becomes abundantly clear that Ruby knew all about the conspiracy. He was muscled by either Gaincana or Marcello, probably Giancana, to kill Oswald.

However, Johnson remained the stumbling block to Plan B. His strategy was to insist on the lone gunman theory. He believed that the admittance of any conspiracy, whether it was the right or wrong one, would inevitably mean a full and open investigation into the assassination of JFK. He rightly concluded that this investigation would eventually reach LBJ and the Suite 8F network. Therefore he set up the Warren Commission with the prime purpose of confirming that Oswald was the lone gunman. To do this they had to portray Jack Ruby as a man who acted alone. This meant they had to conceal his relationship with organized crime.

They had to conceal Ruby's link to organized crime because exposure of that would quicly lead up to the collaboration of organized crime with the CIA and the "big boys" (including LBJ) in this conspiracy to kill JFK. Blakey could pull of the trick to blame it on the mob, because at that time the mob guys that could reasonably be feared to expose this collaboration (or had been called to testify), had already been silenced: Giancana, Roselli, Ferrie, Nicoletti, Ruby, Cain, Moceri etc.

In the long run Johnson’s strategy helped the conspirators with Plan B. The Warren Commission was clearly a cover up. To most researchers, it was an attempt to cover up the role played by organized crime in the assassination. Some have asked the obvious question: why would LBJ, the Warren Commission, the CIA, and the FBI cover up the role played by organized crime? The answer most researchers have given is that the conspirators employed Mafia people to carry out the assassination. However, this makes no sense at all. This would have given power to the Mafia over the conspirators.

Even if the conspirators had been foolish enough to have tried recruiting members of the Mafia to kill JFK, they would have automatically realised they were being set up. Even if the conspirators bypassed the leaders and went directly to the foot soldiers, they would have had a similar reaction. As Charles Harrelson told Nigel Turner during the filming of his series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, he would not have accepted such a contract as he knew that if he had, he would have ended up, like Oswald, being killed by the people placing the contract.

Of course people like Wim are desperate to believe that JFK was killed by the Mafia. Otherwise the confessions made by James Files and Chauncey Holt are worthless.

I am not "desperate" at all to believe that JFK was killed by the Mafia. This is a gross misrepresentation. In fact I do not believe at all that the Mafia killed Kennedy. I believe it was a joint effort of disaffected CIA and army officers, members of Texan "big oil", Cuban exiles and mafia bosses. The last two groups mainly providing some of the low level operatives including shooters. These four groups were already collaberating closely, as I have pointed out repeatedly. They are proven facts that you conveniently ignore, every time it is pointed out. The CIA-Mafia plots to assassinate Castro are just one part of that proven record, and it is just waaaay too much for a coincidence that these same names pop up as suspects in the JFK assasination. People like Phillips, Shackley, Giancana, Roselli, Trafficante, H.L. Hunt, Howard Hunt, Lansdale, Banister, Ferrie, Ochsner, Harvey, Nicoletti, Licavoli and yes, even Files and Lee harvey Oswald., who was also fiercely anti-Castro and anti- communist.

Maybe researchers interested in finding the truth should turn this question round. If is because of the fact that researchers have insisted that organized crime was behind the assassination of JFK that you have characters such as James Files, Chauncey Holt, Loy Factor, Charles Harrelson (later withdrawn), Christian David, Robert W. Easterling, etc. coming forward claiming they were part of the plot. This has fooled some researchers into believing this is evidence that the Mafia was involved in the assassination.

The mafia was indeed involved, whether Files and Holt were telling the truth or not. Even a CIA guy like Tosh acknowledges that.

Edited December 23, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar

[Jim Root]

Who influenced Ruby.

From the record, begining with Ruby's actions on the night of the 22nd:

"At 9:00 p.m. he telphoned Ralph Paul but was unable to persuade Paul to join him at synagogue services." (WC Report, Pg 338)

"From his apartment, Ruby drove to Temple Shearith Israel, arriving near the end of a 2-hour service which had began at 8 p.m." (WC Report, Pg 339)

"Ruby is known to have made his way, by about 11:30 p.m., to the third floor of the Dallas Police Department..." (WC Report, Pg 339)

'I saw Jack and two out-of-state reporters, whom I did not know, leave the elevator door and proceed toward those television cameras, to go around the corner where Captain Fritz's office was. Jack walked between them. these two out-of-state reporters had big press cards pinned on their coats, great big red ones, I think they said "President Kennedy's Visit to Dallas-Press", or something like that. And Jack didn't have one, but the man on either side of him did. and they walked pretty rapidly from the elevator area past the policeman, and Jack was bent over like this-writting on a piece of paper, and talking to one of the reporters, and pointing to something on the peice of paper, he was kind of hynched over." Newsman John Rutledge (WC Report Pg 340)

"Detective Augustus M. Eberhardt, who also recalled that he first saw Ruby earlier in the evening, said Ruby carried a note pad and professed to be a translator for the Israeli press." (WC Report Pg. 342)

He accompanied the newsmen to the basement to observe Oswald. His presence at the midnight news conference is established by television tapes and by at least 12 witnesses." (WC Report Pg. 342)

When questioned during his lie detector test we find this information:

(Testimony of Bell P. Herndon)

Mr. Specter.

Will movement or speaking cause a variation in the tracings ordinarily, Mr. Herndon?

Mr. Herndon.

Yes. Body movements or speaking any phrase or sentence would certainly cause changes in the physiological patterns as displayed on the polygraph. I made notation of that, however, and that explains the changes On question No. 2, Mr. Ruby did show a significant drop in the relative blood pressure. This question pertained to: "Did you go to the Dallas police station at any time on Friday November 22, 1963, before you went to the synagogue? I asked him about this question later when he responded "No," and I noticed a physiological change. He advised that there was some man by the name of John Rutledge, and he made an association with proceedings at the trial which I have reason to believe this gentleman, John Rutledge, differed with what Ruby stated as to when he went to the synagogue. Due to the nature of this change, however, it is possible that it was caused by a body motion that I failed to detect during the actual response.

I notice that the cardio pen dropped all the way down and hit what we call the limit screws. This frequently is caused by a sudden rapid shift in his body position, and this change could have been caused by a body movement.With regard to the other relevant questions in this series, question 4, question 6, and question 8, there was no significant deviation from his normal physiological patterns. (Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XIV - Page 594)

It seems Jack Ruby may have been nervous about answering questions that dealt with Rutledge's, who identified him with the "two out of state" newsmen testimony and his trip to the synagogue. This particular question created a "a physiological change" or was it just body motion that Herndon, " failed to detect during the actual response"?

If not body movement that Herndon "failed to detect during the actual response" then Ruby may have lied about a question that centered on his trip to the synagogue and the identity of the two "out of state" reporters.

To my knowledge nobody has ever identified the "two out of state" newsmen who wore "big press cards pinned on their coats, great big red ones, I think they said 'President Kennedy's Visit to Dallas-Press."

Seems they might be the key to who may have held influence over Ruby.

Jim Root

[John Simkin]

I first began to question the idea that organized crime was involved in the assassination of JFK while reading a book on the history of the Mafia in America. The book did not refer to the JFK assassination as such but it did say something of great relevance. Throughout its history it has never killed high ranking politicians. There is a very good reason for this.

For example, in September, 1932, Jimmy Walker, a politician under Mafia control, was forced to resign as mayor of New York. (1) He was replaced by Fiorello La Guardia. (2) As Walker had been exposes as in the pay of gangsters, he decided to take this opportunity to try and tackle organized crime in the city. He instructed his special prosecutor, Thomas Dewey, to investigate the business interests of several leading crime figures. (3) This included Arthur Flegenheimer (Dutch Schultz). (4) When Schultz heard the news, he began making plans to have Dewey assassinated. Other gang leaders in New York were furious when they heard the news. They pointed out that you bribed politicians, you did not kill them. By killing Dewey you would only highlight the existence of organized crime. Remember, at this time, J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI denied that the Mafia actually existed in America.

The leading bosses realised that killing Dewey would only increase La Guardia’s determination to wipe them out. With Dewey as a martyr, La Guardia would have enough public support to destroy them. Louis Lepke Buchalter, one of New York's main gang leaders, therefore paid Charlie Workman and Emmanuel Weiss to kill Schultz. (5) On 23rd October, 1935, Dutch Schultz and three of his bodyguards, were killed while they were eating in a Newark restaurant.

This solved the problem and the Mafia continued to flourish. Although mobsters made private threats about most leading politicians, they were never carried out. In fact, if the Dutch Schultz case is anything to go by, if they had began making plans to kill JFK, they would be likely to be taken out by fellow mobsters before the killing could take place.

It makes no sense at all for organized crime to have been behind the assassination. They knew that it would probably result in them being destroyed by the authorities. It is no coincidence that George Robert Blakey was selected to become chief counsel and staff director to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. (6)

He had previously worked as a Special Attorney at the Department of Justice in the Organized Crime & Racketeering Section from 1960 to 1964. He also served as a professor of law and director of the Cornell Institute on Organized Crime at Cornell Law School. In the 1960s Blakey campaigned for and helped write much of the anti-racketeering legislation that helped undermine the activities of the Mafia. This included the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (1970).

It is no coincidence that he became the leading advocate of the “Mafia did it” school. Despite the lack of evidence, he tried to show this in the HUCA report. He followed this up with The Plot to Kill the President (1981). In the book Blakey argues that the Mafia boss, Carlos Marcello, organized the assassination. The book was reissued in paperback in 1993 as Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime.

(1) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAwalkerJ.htm

(2) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARlaguardia.htm

(3) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAdeweyT.htm

(4) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACschultz.htm

(5) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAClepke.htm

(6) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKblakey.htm

[Tim Gratz]

I first began to question the idea that organized crime was involved in the assassination of JFK while reading a book on the history of the Mafia in America. The book did not refer to the JFK assassination as such but it did say something of great relevance. Throughout its history it has never killed high ranking politicians. There is a very good reason for this.

For example, in September, 1932, Jimmy Walker, a politician under Mafia control, was forced to resign as mayor of New York. (1) He was replaced by  Fiorello La Guardia. (2) As Walker had been exposes as in the pay of gangsters, he decided to take this opportunity to try and tackle organized crime in the city. He instructed his special prosecutor, Thomas Dewey, to investigate the business interests of several leading crime figures. (3) This included Arthur Flegenheimer (Dutch Schultz). (4) When Schultz heard the news, he began making plans to have Dewey assassinated. Other gang leaders in New York were furious when they heard the news. They pointed out that you bribed politicians, you did not kill them. By killing Dewey you would only highlight the existence of organized crime. Remember, at this time, J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI denied that the Mafia actually existed in America.

The leading bosses realised that killing Dewey would only increase La Guardia’s determination to wipe them out. With Dewey as a martyr, La Guardia would have enough public support to destroy them. Louis Lepke Buchalter, one of New York's main gang leaders, therefore paid Charlie Workman and Emmanuel Weiss to kill Schultz. (5) On 23rd October, 1935, Dutch Schultz and three of his bodyguards, were killed while they were eating in a Newark restaurant. 

This solved the problem and the Mafia continued to flourish. Although mobsters made private threats about most leading politicians, they were never carried out. In fact, if the Dutch Schultz case is anything to go by, if they had began making plans to kill JFK, they would be likely to be taken out by fellow mobsters before the killing could take place.

It makes no sense at all for organized crime to have been behind the assassination. They knew that it would probably result in them being destroyed by the authorities. It is no coincidence that  George Robert Blakey was selected to become chief counsel and staff director to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. (6) 

He had previously worked as a Special Attorney at the Department of Justice in the Organized Crime & Racketeering Section from 1960 to 1964. He also served as a professor of law and director of the Cornell Institute on Organized Crime at Cornell Law School. In the 1960s Blakey campaigned for and helped write much of the anti-racketeering legislation that helped undermine the activities of the Mafia. This included the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (1970).

It is no coincidence that he became the leading advocate of the “Mafia did it” school. Despite the lack of evidence, he tried to show this in the HUCA report. He followed this up with The Plot to Kill the President (1981). In the book Blakey argues that the Mafia boss, Carlos Marcello, organized the assassination. The book was reissued in paperback in 1993 as Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime.

(1) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAwalkerJ.htm

(2) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARlaguardia.htm

(3) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAdeweyT.htm

(4) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACschultz.htm

(5)  http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAClepke.htm

(6) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKblakey.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John, I will reply to this post in greater detail later.

It appears your rejection of a mafia hit on JFK is based on the following generalization (your words): "Throughout its history [the Mafia] has never killed high ranking politicians."

The easy answer to this is the old adage: "All generalizations are false."

In support of the generalization, you offer one example: the Mob's retaliation against Dutch Schultz because Schultz tried to kill Thomas Dewey. But Schultz tried to kill Dewey not when he was a high ranking politician but when he was a special prosecutor. The generalization you made is often framed broader: that the Mafia does not kill politicians, judges, prosecutors, etc.

Let us then test your theory with the evidence.

Are you aware of any cases in which the mafia has either killed or attempted to kill

a politician, a judge, a prosecutor, etc?

As I suspect you know, such cases do exist. Two such cases (arising in Italy) are covered in the book "Excellent Cadavers" (Mafiia murdered two magistrates). The existence of such cases demonstrates your generalization is not ALWAYS true. Ergo, it may not be true in the JFK case.

Many commentators think the JFK case was different because Joe Kennedy had made a deal with the Mafia to get its support for Jack in the 1960 election, but then proceeded to double-cross the Mafia. (Good old Joe!)

With respect to your comment that the Mafia knew it would be destroyed if it killed Kennedy, Robert Kennedy was doing a fairly effective job of destroying the Mafia.

So what did it have to lose anyway?

* * * * * * * * * * *

Query: Why did the Mafia kill Einstein?

Answer: He knew too much!

Edited December 25, 2004 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

It appears your rejection of a mafia hit on JFK is based on the following generalization (your words): "Throughout its history [the Mafia] has never killed high ranking politicians."

The easy answer to this is the old adage: "All generalizations are false."

My dictionary defines a generalization as: “a statement that does not take adequate account of the facts”.

Therefore it is not correct to say I was making a generalization. I made a statement and then attempted to support it with factual information.

In support of the generalization, you offer one example: the Mob's retaliation against Dutch Schultz because Schultz tried to kill Thomas Dewey.  But Schultz tried to kill Dewey not when he was a high ranking politician but when he was a special prosecutor.  The generalization you made is often framed broader: that the Mafia does not kill politicians, judges, prosecutors, etc.

Dewey was of course a politician as well as a special prosecutor. He was governor of New York and in 1944 was the Republican Party candidate for the presidency. In fact, he used his prosecution of the Mafia as part of his campaign to become president.

Let us then test your theory with the evidence.

Are you aware of any cases in which the mafia has either killed or attempted to kill a politician, a judge, a prosecutor, etc?

As I suspect you know, such cases do exist.  Two such cases (arising in Italy) are covered in the book "Excellent Cadavers" (Mafiia murdered two magistrates).  The existence of such cases demonstrates your generalization is not ALWAYS true.  Ergo, it may not be true in the JFK case.

I made it clear that the statement referred to organized crime in the United States. I am not interested in how the Mafia behaves in other countries. Therefore this list is irrelevant.

The situation in Italy is very different to the United States. It emerged as an organization in 1863. Its existence was acknowledged by the authorities soon afterwards. Unlike in America where the corruption of J. Edgar Hoover resulted in him stating that the organization did not exist.

I see that you refer to magistrates being killed in Italy. You will find very few examples of politicians being killed by the Mafia. Like in America, the Mafia concentrate on bribing rather than killing politicians.

With respect to your comment that the Mafia knew it would be destroyed if it killed Kennedy, Robert Kennedy was doing a fairly effective job of destroying the Mafia. So what did it have to lose anyway?

It is not true that Robert Kennedy was doing a great job of destroying the Mafia in the United States. As we now know, he turned a blind eye to the deals being done by the CIA with the Mafia. This is why crime bosses became involved in the CIA plot to kill Castro. It gave them protection from prosecution. This meant that the FBI and the government had to be part of this deal (the CIA had no authority on its own to protect the Mafia).

Robert Kennedy also refused to expose the way that the Mafia was blackmailing Hoover. The reason being that Hoover was blackmailing RFK and JFK.

In reality, the Mafia was only tackled after the death of Robert Kennedy. It is in fact, G. Robert Blakey, who we can thank for the reduction in political power of the Mafia with the passing of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (1970).

[Tim Gratz]

[it is not true that Robert Kennedy was doing a great job of destroying the Mafia in the United States. As we now know, he turned a blind eye to the deals being done by the CIA with the Mafia. This is why crime bosses became involved in the CIA plot to kill Castro. It gave them protection from prosecution. This meant that the FBI and the government had to be part of this deal (the CIA had no authority on its own to protect the Mafia). 

Robert Kennedy also refused to expose the way that the Mafia was blackmailing Hoover. The reason being that Hoover was blackmailing RFK and JFK.

In reality, the Mafia was only tackled after the death of Robert Kennedy. It is in fact, G. Robert Blakey, who we can thank for the reduction in political power of the Mafia with the passing of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (1970).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wil get and post statistics on the great increase in prosecution of organized crime under RFK and how it fell once he was no longer AG. I also do not think he "turned a blind eye to the deals by the CIA with the Mafia". In fact, the deals were first exposed to him by CIA Inspector General Laurence Houston in a meeting on May 7, 1962, a meeting also attended by Col Sheffield Edwards of the CIA Office of Security. Edwards testified before the Church Committee how unhappy RFK was with those disclosures and admonished the CIA officials that he expected them to notify him in advance if they ever contemplated doing business with the underworld again. (The CIA had told RFK, wrongfully, that it was no longer working with the Mafia.)

And I believe you are wrong that the CIA had no authority on its own to protect the Mafia. It is my understanding that if the CIA objected to a prosecution or even an investigation, the DOJ would back off. In fact, of course, that is why Richard Nixon attempted unsuccessfully to have the CIA obstruct the FBI's investigation of Watergate. This may be a quibble. I agree that at least some of the mafioso got involved in the plots against Castro because they figured their involvement might protect them from future criminal prosecution.

Under RFK, as you know, Carlos Marcello of New Orleans was forcibly ejected from the country without, apparently, any legal proceeding. The FBI under Bill Roemer was putting Giancana under so much pressure that Giancana went to federal court to ontain an injunction against the FBI. And the DOJ was, of course, actively prosecuting Jimmy Hoffa.

The Mafia had plenty of reasons to want to retaliate against JFK, in large part, of course, because when Giancana had made a deal with Joe Kennedy to have the mafia support JFK's presidential bid, Joe Kennedy promised him that he (Joe) would take care of RFK. In the event, it was Joe Kennedy who urged (ordered) JFK to make RFK the AG.

Sam Giancana's reaction to Joe Kennedy's doublecross is recorded in the book "Doublecross".

As you know, both Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante indicated foreknowledge of the Kennedy assassination (Marcello to Ed Becker and Trafficante to Jose Aleman). Moreover, both Marcello and Trafficante "confessed" , after the fact, to participation in the assassination. Marcello while he was hospitalized in federal custody (the FBI report is duplicated in the book "Triangle of Death") and Trafficante to his attorney Frank Ragano (and he was also overheard on an FBI wiretap stating that he was one of only two living persons who knew who really killed JFK).

Can you name one member of the military industrial complex (or the military industrial congressional complex, as you prefer) who both (1) indicated foreknowledge of the assassination; and (2) admiited, afterward, participation in the conspiracy? I am not aware of any such person.

Edited December 29, 2004 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

[I see that you refer to magistrates being killed in Italy. You will find very few examples of politicians being killed by the Mafia. Like in America, the Mafia concentrate on bribing rather than killing politicians.

John, I believe the many reason you cite in this post to argue against the participation of organized crime in the assassination is that organized crime does not (in the United States anyway) kill politicians, They bribe them. Well, the Mafia "bribed" JFK: Skinny D'Amato delivered $500,000 to Joe Kennedy in early March of 1960. But the Kennedys double-crossed the Mafia. Rather than protecting the Mafia, the Kennedy Administration went after the Mafia with a vengenance.

It may be true that the Mafia would prefer to bribe politicians rather than kill them. It may even be that the Mafia does not kill politicians who stay "straight" and refuse the Mafia offers of bribes or other forms of largesse. Certainly the Mafia would not kill a politician who accepted the bribe and was delivering the expected quid pro quo. But logic suggests that the Mafia might kill a politician who accepts a bribe and then welshes.

Also, I think there is solid evidence that the Mafia in America did indeed kill politicians. Let's look at Chicago. The following quote is from the article "Raising Cain" by Richard C. Lindberg. (A link is below the quote.)

"Testifying before the Kefauver committee hearings on organized crime in September 1950, Phil D’Andrea a deputy bailiff who served writs and carried a gun for Capone, enumerated his former bosses’ political allegiance. “What was Al Capone? He was a Republican when it fitted his clothes I guess, and a Democrat otherwise.”

"The assassination of uncooperative politicians, those who would betray or compromise the Bloc in some way, or the reformers who attempted to destroy the Bloc all together, had occurred with numbing regularity dating back to the 1920s.

"On February 6, 1952, a retired soft-drink executive named Charles Gross was cut down in a fusillade of syndicate bullets as he walked to a political meeting near Kedzie and North Avenue. Gross was the acting 31st Ward Republican Committeeman, but he had defied a recent standing order from the West Side Bloc to avoid meddling in gambling operations."

http://www.search-international.com/whatsn...raisingcain.htm

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Of course, many people argue that the Chicago mob (known as the "Outfit") was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

Edited December 29, 2004 by Tim Gratz

[Al Carrier]

I see that you refer to magistrates being killed in Italy. You will find very few examples of politicians being killed by the Mafia. Like in America, the Mafia concentrate on bribing rather than killing politicians. John Simkin

John, I believe the many reason you cite in this post to argue against the participation of organized crime in the assassination is that organized crime does not (in the United States anyway) kill politicians, They bribe them. Well, the Mafia "bribed" JFK: Skinny D'Amato delivered $500,000 to Joe Kennedy in early March of 1960. But the Kennedys double-crossed the Mafia. Rather than protecting the Mafia, the Kennedy Administration went after the Mafia with a vengenance.

It may be true that the Mafia would prefer to bribe politicians rather than kill them. It may even be that the Mafia does not kill politicians who stay "straight" and refuse the Mafia offers of bribes or other forms of largesse. Certainly the Mafia would not kill a politician who accepted the bribe and was delivering the expected quid pro quo. But logic suggests that the Mafia might kill a politician who accepts a bribe and then welshes.

Also, I think there is solid evidence that the Mafia in America did indeed kill politicians. Let's look at Chicago. The following quote is from the article "Raising Cain" by Richard C. Lindberg. (A link is below the quote.)

"Testifying before the Kefauver committee hearings on organized crime in September 1950, Phil D’Andrea a deputy bailiff who served writs and carried a gun for Capone, enumerated his former bosses’ political allegiance. “What was Al Capone? He was a Republican when it fitted his clothes I guess, and a Democrat otherwise.”

"The assassination of uncooperative politicians, those who would betray or compromise the Bloc in some way, or the reformers who attempted to destroy the Bloc all together, had occurred with numbing regularity dating back to the 1920s.

"On February 6, 1952, a retired soft-drink executive named Charles Gross was cut down in a fusillade of syndicate bullets as he walked to a political meeting near Kedzie and North Avenue. Gross was the acting 31st Ward Republican Committeeman, but he had defied a recent standing order from the West Side Bloc to avoid meddling in gambling operations."

http://www.search-international.com/whatsn...raisingcain.htm

Of course, many people argue that the Chicago mob (known as the "Outfit") was involved in the Kennedy assassination. (Tim Gratz)

Some key questions to consider here is what precedence has the Kennedy Assassination been linked to other acts by the mafia? A hale of bullets on a Chicago Street to a city med level figure is a far cry from a triangulation of gunfire on a sitting president having full protection.

The Roselli-Lansdale-Harvey Cuban Operation produced such great results that it would surely be utilized for the assassination of John Kennedy? This operation was a joke and nothing but a classic fleecing of America as substancial dollars were put into it with no results whatsover, and it ended abruptly after the assassination.

Does anyone really believe that with all the FBI wiretaps of the mafia in the years following the assassination, that none picked up any incling of mafia involvement and that of those that did were able to be swept under the rug?

Would you trust the likes of the mob to hit the president successfully and keep it quiet all these years?

Al

[Pat Speer]

I believe the argument over whether the CIA or the mob was behind the hit is sort of like a Rorschach test of the human psyche. Those who believe power is held by anonymous individuals in organizations working for a cause blame the military or the CIA and those who believe power resides in ruthless and dynamic individuals working for self-interest blame the mob and/or their right-wing buddies. I believe an honest appraisal of history reveals that criminals are more likely to control those in government than those in government control the criminals. I mean, how many political "bosses" have ruled their roost from an executive position? Very few. One can only conclude therefore that that's not where the real power lies.

It makes sense to me that a few well-placed "rogue" CIA agents, working with the Cubans under the control of the mob, could have pulled this off without it going much higher. The only false sponsor was Castro, who was used to insure the participation of the Cubans. It's also possible the Castro flag was waved to give LBJ an excuse to cover-up. To me. LBJ, and his buddy Connally, for that matter, were dirty as dishwater and beholden to organized crime, Marcello, in particular. That the mob was incapable of keeping quiet is refuted by the strange quiet surrounding the deaths of Hoffa, Giancana, and Rosselli, not to mention another couple of hundred or so. It's unfortunate that the goofy charm of shows such as the Sopranos have marginalized the historical impact of organized crime and corruption on American history. It still exists today, in everything from the Savings and Loan scams to Enron. And the American public is still paying for it, through the nose. While the concentration of power in a secret government is insidious and is no doubt responsible for many of the great wrongs done in the last century, the every day manipulations of power by cruel and powerful individuals should not be under-estimated. I've seen some of it up close, and it's not pretty.

It's completely logical to me that Johnson would have sent the word out to Black, or Baker, or one of his cronies, that he needed "help," and that they would in turn have sent the word out to Marcello and Trafficante. Along with the Cubans, they were able to drag in a few of the CIA's disgruntled Bay of Pigs veterans, who may or may not have convinced themselves they were doing the country a favor. LBJ got the DOJ off the mob's back in payment, and the mob funded the Cubans for awhile as a subcontractor fee. Afterwards, LBJ pulled a few strings with Hoover and the crime was successfully covered-up. Almost.

Edited December 31, 2004 by Pat Speer

[John Simkin]

Many commentators think the JFK case was different because Joe Kennedy had made a deal with the Mafia to get its support for Jack in the 1960 election, but then proceeded to double-cross the Mafia. (Good old Joe!)

With respect to your comment that the Mafia knew it would be destroyed if it killed Kennedy, Robert Kennedy was doing a fairly effective job of destroying the Mafia.

So what did it have to lose anyway?

It is true that the public image is that RFK did make some advances in dealing with organized crime during JFK's administration. It is often pointed out that RFK got Carlos Marcello deported. It is true that on 4th April, 1961 Marcello was arrested by the authorities and taken forcibly removed to Guatemala. This got a great deal of publicity and it gave the impression that the JFK was serious about tackling organized crime. However, RFK was fully aware that within a few weeks Marcello was back living in the United States. JFK did not seem too concerned about this and he was not rearrested until 1966. He was eventually charged and convicted for assault.

RFK also had no success with other senior crime figures. In fact, if they were dealt with at all, it was done after the JFK administration. See for example the careers of Santo Trafficante (died without being arrested in 1987), Meyer Lansky (found not guilty of various charges in 1973), Sam Giancana (died without being arrested in 1975), John Roselli (charge with illegal gambling in 1970), Frank Costello (died without being arrested in 1973) and Peter Licavoli (charged with stealing a painting in 1976).

[Tim Gratz]

Many commentators think the JFK case was different because Joe Kennedy had made a deal with the Mafia to get its support for Jack in the 1960 election, but then proceeded to double-cross the Mafia. (Good old Joe!)

With respect to your comment that the Mafia knew it would be destroyed if it killed Kennedy, Robert Kennedy was doing a fairly effective job of destroying the Mafia.

So what did it have to lose anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is true that the public image is that RFK did make some advances in dealing with organized crime during JFK's administration. It is often pointed out that RFK got Carlos Marcello deported. It is true that on 4th April, 1961 Marcello was arrested by the authorities and taken forcibly removed to Guatemala. This got a great deal of publicity and it gave the impression that the JFK was serious about tackling organized crime. However, RFK was fully aware that within a few weeks Marcello was back living in the United States. JFK did not seem too concerned about this and he was not rearrested until 1966. He was eventually charged and convicted for assault.

RFK also had no success with other senior crime figures. In fact, if they were dealt with at all, it was done after the JFK administration. See for example the careers of Santo Trafficante (died without being arrested in 1987), Meyer Lansky (found not guilty of various charges in 1973), Sam Giancana (died without being arrested in 1975), John Roselli (charge with illegal gambling in 1970), Frank Costello (died without being arrested in 1973) and Peter Licavoli (charged with stealing a painting in 1976).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John, you make some good points in this post (although I reserve the right to comment in greater length later). In fact, I read just yesterday statistics showing both the prosecutions and convictions for organized crime increased under LBJ, which surprised me.

But if in fact the Mob hit JFK it may have been more in retaliation for the perceived doublecross (of the $500,000 the mob delivered to Joe Kennedy in early March 1960) than in any realistic expetation it would fare better under LBJ.

[John Simkin]

One of the main arguments made for Mafia involvement in the assassination concerns the claim that Sam Giancana and his crime syndicate in Chicago helped JFK win Illinois. Therefore, JFK was killed because he did not deliver the things he promised Giancana. Does the evidence support this claim?

It is true that organized crime has been involved in trying to influence presidential elections since the early 1900s. They were particularly involved in trying to shape the result in Chicago. However, it is difficult to know just how successful they were in this. What was important is that politicians believed they had considerable influence. In fact, there is evidence that mobsters in Chicago told both candidates they were working for them. In this way they could go to the winning candidate and argue that they had helped them “steal the election”. For example, the FBI have tapes of mobsters from Chicago saying they were working for both JFK and Nixon in 1960.

The evidence suggests that it was Richard Daley who won Chicago for JFK. He probably used mobsters to help him with this. However, JFK and his representatives dealt with Daley, not mobsters. It has been suggested that it was Joe Kennedy who went to organized crime for help in the election. I severely doubt this. Joe was an experienced political operator. He knew that the FBI were monitoring organized crime figures. They might well have been monitoring his actions as well. He would have been crazy to have got involved in this kind of activity.

It is of course true that JFK did rely on buying votes to win the election. This is what happens in American politics. This is why I do not believe the US is a fully functioning democracy.

JFK also bought the nomination. The most important example of this concerns West Virginia. JFK was determined to put Hubert Humphrey out of the race. Polls suggested that Humphrey could win West Virginia. JFK decided to spend around $2m in bribes and other payoffs during the primary.

Journalists working for Wall Street Journal obtained a great deal of evidence what was going on. They also discovered where this money was coming from. This was a group described by the journalists as the Irish Mafia. They were a group of businessmen linked to JFK who wanted federal contracts or political jobs in return. However, the editor of the Wall Street Journal refused to publish the story. Not because he was in the pay of JFK but because he was part of the media conspiracy to hide political corruption in the United States. As the editor would have pointed out, all leading politicians in America were surrounded by businessmen involved in buying political favours. Humphrey was no different and the journalists had to admit that they had also discovered that he was buying votes in West Virginia.

The problem was not that mobsters were buying political favours. The problem was that the pillars of the community were doing it. It was an integral part of the political system. The finger was only pointed at the Mafia when it suited political leaders to do so.

If we go on to the actual presidential election itself, it is not true that the vote in Illinois won JFK the election. Nor was it the only state charged with vote fraud. The following states were investigated after the 1960 election: Illinois, New Jersey, Texas, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina and Pennsylvania. Evidence of fraud in these states was sent to the Attorney General (Robert Kennedy). The votes in Texas, Michigan, New Jersey and Missouri gave particular concern as they all resulted in narrow victories for Kennedy. Understandably, RFK refused to take action against this fraud.

The narrowness of the electoral college victory is misleading. The Illinois vote gave JFK a 27 electoral vote lead over Nixon. However, there were also a 26 unpledged Democratic electors in Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama. They were still in negotiations with JFK about his civil rights policy. He had already given them promises when he was attempting to be the Democratic candidate at the beginning of the campaign. No doubt he would have been willing to have given it in writing if he needed to. JFK had already shown he was willing to do deals with racists. We must not believe the myth that JFK (or RFK for that matter) was a politician who believed in racial equality.

As I have already pointed out , JFK did not upset organized crime by persecuting them once he gained office. This is of course another myth. This took place in the 1970s, not the 1960s. People like Giancana were indeed upset with JFK in 1963. However, he was upset as a businessman, not as a gangster. JFK had not got him back his business interests in Cuba. It was not only the gangsters who was upset about this. William Pawley and Earl Smith are just two of those businessmen who had lost a lot of money because of the actions of Castro.

One of the major problems that arises from the investigation of the assassination is the belief that JFK was different from other American politicians. He was indeed no more honest or corrupt than all the others who sought to become president. However, because he was assassinated, the media has constructed a mythical figure. This is especially loved by Democratic voters and explains the reasons why some people become interested in the events surrounding the assassination.

It is of course possible that JFK became a changed man after the Cuban Missile Crisis. This in itself could explain why he needed to be assassinated. However, before 1962, he was your regular corrupt politician.

Another aspect of this myth concerns JFK’s relationship with the CIA. This is an important topic and will therefore start a new thread where these issues can be discussed in detail.